As I watching the US Open Cup, I couldn't help but recognize the benefits this offers the league. However, I believe it is not maximizing its potential. Specifically, in regards to offering fringe players an opportunity to start for the first team and make a case. Thus, I am arguing we should reformat the US Open Cup into a League format with a tournament. How? I'd break into 8 regional conferences, with promotion/relegation between the divisions, of 6 teams each, at least in the first division. This would permit 10 home/away games; which I would propose one game per month, except for in June and in November. MLS, USL, D3, NASL? must field teams and PDL and NPSL can request to compete, as well. On MLS, I would argue that there be no reserve teams allowed; MLS teams must field at least 5 u23 domestic players in the starting XI, and designated players can only come on after the second half has started as a handicap; during league play. Note, that MLS players should have no restriction on calling players from the second team to the first team. The conferences I would propose are: Southwest, Northwest, Mountain, South-Central, Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast. Note, I would proposition the Canadian federation to combine their domestic cup with ours; since our leagues are already married. The champion of each conference qualifies for the Lamar Hunt Cup; which I argue should be held in the middle of June, during when the major international tournaments take place. This reason is also to give the MLS league a break. I'd argue for two weeks. The quarter-finals are home/away, the semi-finals are home/away; however, I'd propose the final be located at the home site of the finalist who had the highest attendance record during the Lamar Hunt League/Cup leading to the final. Of note, I would argue that all handicaps on MLS teams be removed during the Cup play. Although this adds more games to the busy calendar for MLS teams; it is highly encouraged that MLS teams send their B teams during league play to give these players a shot and to also keep them game sharp. For instance, Atlanta United XI might look like: Kann, Zizzo, Robinson, Escobar, Hernandez, McCann, Kratz, Carleton, Williams, Vasquez, Gallagher. Not quite the first team, however, a bridge between the first team and the second team. Thus, players who otherwise might stagnate on the bench, are now given a chance to at least play in a highly competitive, high stakes game on a much more regular basis. Other benefits include more regional rivalry games. A more hyped competitive tournament format for the league to pause and pay attention to the tournament. The promotion/relegation some fans want without having to institute it into the league proper. And, it will cut down on clubs missing their key players during league play. That said, it also helps the lower leagues with more exposure, which should help stabilize the lower leagues. Ultimately, given the one con is schedule congestion; the pros of #1 giving fringe players a shot and ability to stay game fit, #2 more regional rivalry games, #3 more hyped and competitive tournament format, #4 a chance for the league to take a short summer break to rest some players and not be without key players during national team call ups, #5 more exposure to the lower leagues, and #6 a glimpse of what promotion/relegation would look like in this country without the risks it would have in the league proper; restructuring the US Open Cup into a Domestic Cup League (Lamar Hunt League sounds catchy enough for me) is well worth it.
Proposed Model Southwest Conference (California, Nevada, Hawaii) 1st Division 1. Los Angeles FC (MLS) 2. LA Galaxy (MLS) 3. San Jose Earthquakes (MLS) 4. Sacramento Republic (USL) 5. Las Vegas Lights (USL) -6. Fresno FC (USL) 2nd Division +1. Orange County SC (USL) 2. Reno 1868 (USL) 3. San Diego 1904 FC (NASL) 4. California United FC (NASL) 5. Oakland East Bay (USL) 6. [TBD] 3rd Division 1. [TBD] 2. [TBD] 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: N/A *USL Expansion Candidates: Honolulu, Inland Empire, Bakersfield, Ventura County *PDL: Burlingame Dragons FC, FC Golden State Force, San Diego Zest FC, San Francisco City FC, SoCal Surf, Southern California Seahorses, Ventura County Fusion *NPSL: Academia SC, CD Aguiluchos, FC Davis, East Bay FC Stompers, El Farolito SC, Napa Valley 1839, Sacramento Gold, Sonoma County Sol, ASC San Diego, Deportivo Coras, FC Golden State, Orange County FC, Oxnard Guerreros, Temecula Northwest Conference (Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Yukon, Alaska, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) 1st Division 1. Seattle Sounders (MLS) 2. Portland Timbers (MLS) 3. Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS) 4. Victoria (CPL) 5. FC Edmonton (CPL) -6. Cavalry FC (CPL) 2nd Division 1. Valour FC 2. [TBD] 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: N/A *USL Expansion Candidates: Tacoma, Eugene, Spokane Shadow+ *PDL: Calgary Foothills, Victoria Highlanders, TSS FC Rovers, Lane United FC *NPSL: Kitsap Soccer Club, FC Mulhouse Portland, OSA FC, PDX FC, Spokane Shadow, WSA Winnipeg, Sioux Falls Thunder FC Mountain Conference (Arizona, West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska) 1st Division 1. Real Salt Lake (MLS) 2. Colorado Rapids (MLS) 3. Sporting Kansas City (MLS) 4. Colorado Springs Switchbacks (USL) 5. Phoenix Rising (USL) -6. FC Tucson (USL-D3) 2nd Division 1. [TBD] 2. [TBD] 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: Phoenix *USL Expansion Candidates: Albuquerque, El Paso, Mesa, Omaha, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, Amarillo *PDL: Albuquerque Sol, FC Boulder, BYU Cougars *NPSL: FC Arizona, FC Wichita, Midland-Odessa FC South Central Conference (East Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Western Tennessee) 1st Division 1. FC Dallas (MLS) 2. Houston Dynamo (MLS) 3. Tulsa Roughnecks (USL) 4. Oklahoma City Energy (USL) 5. San Antonio FC (USL) -6. Rio Grande Valley Toros (USL) 2nd Division +1. Austin (USL) 2. Memphis (USL) 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: Austin, San Antonio, New Orleans *USL Expansion Candidates: Waco, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Dallas-Fort Worth, Dallas-Plano, Little Rock, Jackson, Galveston, Killeen, Beaumont, Baton Rouge, Laredo Heat+, Shreveport Raiders+ *PDL: Brazos Valley Cavalry, FC Cleburne, Houston FC, Laredo Heat, Mississippi Brilla, Texas United *NPSL: Tulsa Athletic, Ozark FC, Little Rock Rangers, New Orleans Jesters, FC Brownsville, Fort Worth Vaqueros, Houston Dutch Lions, Houston Regals, Katy 1895, Shreveport Raiders, Tyler FC Midwest Conference (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri) 1st Division 1. Chicago Fire (MLS) 2. Columbus Crew (MLS) 3. FC Cincinnati (MLS) 4. Minnesota United (MLS) 5. Indy Eleven (USL) -6. Louisville City FC (USL) 2nd Division +1. Saint Louis FC (USL) 2. Madison (USL-D3) 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit *USL Expansion Candidates: Des Moines, Fort Wayne, Lexington, Dayton, Toledo, Michigan Bucks+, Detroit City SC+, Grand Rapids FC+ *PDL: St. Louis Lions, Cincinnati Dutch Lions, Chicago Fire United, Michigan Bucks, Derby City Rovers, Dayton Dutch Lions *NPSL: St. Louis Club Athletico, Demize, Aris FC, Dakota Fusion, Duluth FC, Minneapolis City SC, Rochester Med City FC, Minnesota Twin Stars, Viejos Son Los Trapos, Cleveland SC, Milwaukee Torrent, Kalamazoo FC, FC Indiana, Grand Rapids FC, FC Columbus, AFC Ann Arbor, Detroit City FC Northeast Conference (Pennsylvania outside of Delaware Valley, Upstate New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador) 1st Division 1. New England Revolution (MLS) 2. Toronto FC (MLS) 3. Montreal Impact (MLS) 4. Penn FC (USL) 5. Ottawa Fury (USL) -6. Pittsburgh Riverhounds (USL) 2nd Division +1. Rochester Rhinos (USL) 2. Hamilton (CPL) 3. York 9 FC (CPL) 4. HFX Wanderers (CPL) 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: N/A *USL Expansion Candidates: Providence, Manchester, Burlington, Portland, Syracuse, Buffalo, Worcester, Albany, Quebec City, London, Mississauga, Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven *PDL: Western Mass Pioneers, Westchester Flames, Seacoast United Phantoms, GPS Portland Phoenix, FC Boston, AC Connecticut, Thunder Bay Chill, Kitchener-Waterloo United FC, *NPSL: Seacoast United Mariners, Rhode Island Reds, Hartford City FC, Greater Lowell United, Elm City Express, Boston City FC, Syracuse FC, Rochester Lancers, GBFC Thunder, Fort Pitt Regiment, Erie Commodores, FC Buffalo Mid-Atlantic Conference (Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, DC, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, New Jersey, New York Metro) 1st Division 1. New York City FC (MLS) 2. New York Red Bulls (MLS) 3. DC United (MLS) 4. Philadelphia Union (MLS) 5. New York Cosmos (NASL) -6. Richmond Kickers (USL) 2nd Division +1. [TBD] 2. [TBD] 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: Baltimore *USL Expansion Candidates: Wilmington, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Annapolis, Staten Island, Long Island Rough Riders+, West Virginia Chaos+, Virginia Beach City FC+, Northern Virginia United+, Charlottesville Alliance+, Lehigh Valley United+ *PDL: Reading United AC, Ocean City Nor’easters, Lehigh Valley United, Jersey Express SC, FA Euro, West Virginia Chaos *NPSL: Virginia Beach City FC, Northern Virginia United, Legacy 76, FC Frederick, Charlottesville Alliance, FC Baltimore, TSF FC, New York Athletic Club, Kingston Stockade FC, West Chester United SC, Brooklyn Italians, New Jersey Copa SC, FC Motown, FC Monmouth, Junior Lone Star, Hershey FC, Electric City Shock, Buxmont Torch, Atlantic City FC, Long Island Rough Riders Southeast Conference (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East and Middle Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Puerto Rico) 1st Division 1. Atlanta United (MLS) 2. Orlando City SC (MLS) 3. Miami (MLS) 4. Nashville (MLS) 5. Jacksonville Armada (NASL) -6. Puerto Rico FC (NASL) 2nd Division +1. Charleston Battery (USL) 2. Charlotte Independence (USL) 3. North Carolina FC (USL) 4. Tampa Bay Rowdies (USL) 5. Birmingham Legion FC (USL) -6. Greenville (USL-D3) 3rd Division 1. South Georgia Tormenta FC (USL-D3) 2. [TBD] 3. [TBD] 4. [TBD] 5. [TBD] 6. [TBD] *MLS Expansion Candidates: Charlotte, Raleigh, Tampa Bay *USL Expansion Candidates: Montgomery, Huntsville, Mobile, Pensacola, Asheville City SC+, Greensboro, Columbia, Chattanooga FC+, Atlanta Silverbacks+, Knoxville Force+, Wilmington Hammerheads+, Myrtle Beach Mutiny+, Naples United FC+, *PDL: Carolina Dynamo, Charlotte Eagles, Myrtle Beach Mutiny, Peachtree City MOBA, SC United Bantams, Tobacco Road FC, Tri-Cities FC, Wilmington Hammerheads, IMG Academy Bradenton, Lakeland Tropics, FC Miami City, Palm Beach Suns, SIMA Aguilas, South Florida Surf, The Villages SC, Weston FC *NPSL: Greenville FC, Boca Raton FC, Miami United FC, Naples United FC, Palm Beach United, Storm FC, Asheville City SC, Atlanta Silverbacks, Chattanooga FC, Knoxville Force, Georgia Revolution, Inter Nashville
1. Cups are done by country, so the USA and Canada can't be combined easily. Swansea City, Cardiff City, and Wrexham are Welsh clubs that play in England, but I don't think the English FA could invite Celtic, Rangers, or The New Saints (a frequent champion in Wales) to the FA Cup without permission from the Scottish and Welsh FAs. 2. The PDL includes college players who are only available in the summer. I don't think PDL clubs could play 10 Group Stage games. 3. If talent was equal in each region, the top clubs would play 4 games against clubs not in the top four of their group, which means not in the top 32 of all clubs. I don't think the top clubs would want those extra game. 4. Many games would get low attendance, and the USSF would have to pay travel subsidies for lower level clubs to play 5 away games. 5. There might not be a perfect geographic alignment, but I have complaints. I think Kansas and Oklahoma belong together. A region called "southwest" should not have Nevada without having Arizona. 6. Do you propose having the eight winners play a final tournament? That would take 3 games, which would make 13 games including the Group Stage. Without a final tournament, MLS clubs would face lower level clubs that wouldn't lead to facing MLS clubs later. If only the group winners advanced to a final 8, group winners could be determined by goal differential against the bottom clubs. Without a final tournament, there wouldn't be a U.S. Open Cup winner for the CCL. 7. If there was relegation, Club X could be in a higher league than Club Y for the regular season but Club Y could be in a higher league for the Lamar Hunt League. 8. A Group Stage allows the winner to be clinched before the last matchday. Fans who like MLS playoffs better than Barcelona and Bayern Munich winning titles by double-digit points wouldn't like your format.
I appreciate the fair rebuttal... Logistics, would need to be figured out. If Canada didn’t want to join their domestic cup with ours, then we’d need to reconfigure some of the conferences. Which, I wouldn’t get too hung up on who is placed in which conference in discussing this model. It’s all hypothetical although there will have to be some tough decisions no matter what, even under the current US Open Cup format. I do propose a final tournament to determine the Champion, and that Champion would still be the US Open Cup winner. On low attendance and travel, that’s why tighter geographical regions and more conferences are mentioned. However, while I would mandate all MLS and USL teams to field a team, I would argue that the NPSL/PDL teams would not to register then maybe even go through a short qualification process, if needed. #7 is true. I don’t personally see this as negative. If a team gets relegated then they need to do better next year. Note, this is a nice compromise for the promotion/relegation fans without having to force into MLS. #8 I don’t see this as negative either. Nor do I see really any complaints. ....The bottom line is we need to figure out a way to get younger players more minutes throughout the year and ideally in more competitive games than the USL. There needs to be a bridge between that level and MLS, and in my opinion, the US Open Cup is that level. If this ultimately gives those players in that age bracket 18-22 who are just outside their team’s starting XI, as it gives them some games to stay game sharp and make a case for more game time; I think we need to strongly consider the benefit of having more US Open Cup games throughout the year then we currently have.
In short, what motivates me to see this change: Anthony Fontana Andrew Carleton Sebastian Saucedo Paxton Pomykal Mason Toye Ayo Akinola Jesus Ferreira Jeremy Ebobisse Eryk Williamson Ben Mines Gianluca Busio Jonathan Lewis Wan Kuzain Cameron Lindley Chris Goslin Djordje Mihailovic Jackson Yeuill Derrick Jones Tommy Redding Kyle Duncan Sam Rogers Joseph Scally James Sands Matt Real Sam Vines Marco Farfan Chris Gloster George Bello Jaylin Lindsey Miles Robinson JT Marcinkowski ...I’d like to see a bridge for those players from the USL to MLS and receive the minutes they need to develop into more seasoned professionals. In essence, MLS may be the varsity and USL may be middle school, this change allows for a JV.
How would playing against USL, MLS Reserve sides, and amateur teams (NPSL, PDL) be a step in competition and a "Bridge" to MLS??? How would these extra games be shoehorned into an already congested schedule? USL is the bridge from Academy to MLS. Austin Trusty, Mark McKenzie, Anthony Fontana, Derrick Jones, Tyler Adams, Derrick Etienne, the SKC kids, the RSl youngsters have all gotten valuable professional minutes playing in USL before making the leap to MLS. They also continued to play in USL when they didn't get in MLS games despite not making the gameday 18. You're trying to create a solution that doesn't have a problem to fix. Now if Silva and Commisso could/would check their egos at the door and put an honest effort into making the NASL a viable & sustainable league.........that would give more opportunities for players.
The problem is those players are not getting enough minutes. How many minutes has Carleton had this season? Other than the one US Open Cup game, I think he’s at like 30 minutes. That is a problem and it’s a problem that needs to be fixed. That’s just one player, every player I listed on that list has not received enough minutes to properly develop. We need to come up with solutions to this problem?
Playing time is earned, this is professional sports. Playing time isn’t handed out just because. Coaches jobs are on the line if they don’t win games. Again, Carleton is 17: if he’s good enough to warrant more minutes, he’ll get more minutes. It’s one thing for him to dominate kids his own age, it’s a completely different level for him to perform against grown men. News flash, he’s not guaranteed to get minutes if he goes overseas either. The biggest issue in youth sports is adults pushing kids to play at levels they aren’t ready for. It’s also adults overhyping kids as well. The last thing US soccer needs is more Freddy Adu cases.
They need a platform to earn those minutes in the league. I’m not for coddling of any sort, but I am for providing opportunity. Hence, why expanding the US Open Cup is an avenue for that opportunity. For instance, play well in USL, get promoted to first team, play well in the Open Cup, earn a starting spot in the XI. Don’t do well then the next youth will step up to take this path, and so on. More, it’s hard to be game sharp when players aren’t playing. Ultimately, the worst thing the league can do is to ignore ways to improve player development. This idea that top talent rises to be the best in the world without help is why we are sitting at home this summer.
THEY ARE PLAYING, in USL every week. They have a platform. It’s called training. So that’s two platforms for the young players to earn their minutes. US Soccer barely promotes and supports the Open Cup now. What makes you think they are going to want to expand it? How exactly are they going to sell this to pro and amateur teams? You seem to be forgetting that the overwhelming majority of soccer teams in this country have to pay rent to have a place to play. Again, adding all of these extra games isn’t going to help these kids. They’ll be playing against kids their own age still, or the bottom end of USL and MLS rosters. Not to mention NPSL and PDL teams wouldn’t be able to take part. Their seasons are condensed into a small window as is. Oh, and costs will go up significantly for these teams as well. Open cup games don’t draw outside of a handful of one off situations. There’s not nearly enough money to cover the costs (stadium, referrees, travel, etc.). This idea would be worse then bringing back and resurrecting the old MLS reserve “league.”
The reason we're sitting at home this summer is because some "genius" who had no idea what we were good at and wanted to completely uproot everything failed. Even with a Champions League berth available, half the teams in MLS already use the Open Cup as run-out matches for their reserves. It's already not taken all that seriously until the later rounds. Expanding it would just compound that attitude.
Using it for that measure is exactly why it needs to expand. Players don’t develop if they don’t play, and as the league as grown and progressed, available minutes for young domestics, especially attacking players, has dwindled. In essence, if coaches are not going to play their kids in the league then at least expand the Open Cup so they can play there and make a case of why they should play more in the league.
There isn't time for a Group Stage requiring 10 games. The beginning of the season has midweek CCL games, and starting MLS and/or the USOC earlier could make games postponed by snow. USOC games would get even lower attendance in bad weather. @JasonMa What attendance would you expect Colorado to get for a USOC game hosting a USL club in March? What could make a longer USOC possible is if tournaments like the Desert Diamond Cup were replaced by cup group stages, although that still wouldn't let PDL clubs with college players participate. The preseason could be divided into two or more sites like MLB does, and there could be groups of 4 or 6 playing each opponent once. Playing at a neutral site would avoid having to play every opponent twice or having the home club determined by luck. MLS and USL had 42 combined clubs in the 2018 USOC. With 42 clubs, groups of 4 don't work well because there would have to be 9 groups of 4 and 2 groups of 3 unless some groups had 5, which requires 2 more matchdays. What would work better is 7 groups of 6 with the top two in each group and 2 third place teams advancing.
But again... this implies that it's the responsibility of the league to help young players earn playing time, and not the responsibility of the young players to do it themselves.
I love the idea of the US open in a league format. But if you encourage/require the use of U-23 players, how is it different from what those players face every week in USL? Is it possible to require clubs to play their top six with five young players? No idea how that would work. Are the same requirements being made of non-MLS clubs? I like the idea of the tourney as a tourney league. But it can't have more than 32 teams in it by the time MLS clubs join. Maybe have a one game playoff to get one of those 16 spots for MLS clubs. I'd suggest four team groups, half MLS, half others. So six games in group stage reducing to champions only advance, followed by home and away. so another four games to get to a one off final. USSF would have to pump a ton of money into the small clubs to make it possible for them to take part in the tourney. MLS would have to agree to a heavy gate revenue share (as even their cup gates will exceed most non-MLS gates). I like the concept, and believe that it is a practical and do-able way to give all cllubs a shot at glory. I don't believe pro-rel can work in the US, and this would replace that to some extent.
Well, sounds like where we disagree fundamentally is that I believe whole heartedly the league and the clubs should take a very active role in player development. That doesn’t mean the players don’t bear responsibility; however that the league and the clubs bears this responsibility, as well.
Like most YBTD suggestions, the unique logistics of the US probably make any idea like this one that incorporates "more games" and "pro/rel" difficult to pull off. What I really like, though, is the idea of a separate regional competition. Now, this goes against the American sport ethos, but what if there was no tournament among the winners? What if the regional leagues were just regional leagues? No national champion has to be crowned. If you win your league then you have bragging rights among your nearest neighbors. American soccer struggles to create close regional rivals because the size of the country necessitates a first division that is spread out. American soccer has little hope of pro/rel because the travel costs make it too difficult for small clubs to compete at higher levels. So I really like this idea as it creates a bunch of smaller regional leagues that would encourage more travel among fans without asking tiny clubs to travel a thousand miles for a match. Another advantage, I think, of not crowning a national champion is that it makes a clear distinction between these leagues and MLS. If there is a national champion involved then this becomes almost a competing league structure. By keeping it regional you sort of mark it as less important than MLS. I think this is important otherwise it will get awkward to see an MLS team playing in the third division of the LHL (though maybe this would never happen). If it is made absolutely clear that the LHL is where MLS teams are playing their teenagers then a PDL team beating an MLS team becomes merely a good story rather than fuel for the pro/rel fire. I don't actually think this solves the original problem proposed. I guess it would technically mean more games for U23 players than the handful of USOC games, but all the games would be against other MLS reserve teams or the occasional USL or lower team (and the USL teams might be playing their bench players too). Would 7 or 8 more games against poor competition in front of small crowds really aid development? Maybe? The problem I think it does solve is making the USOC much more interesting and unique and it gives the lower leagues more interaction with MLS and opportunities to prove themselves in a competition that "matters." I think something like this is more likely to help grow the lower divisions than the current USOC (though, hey, why not add the LHL and still keep the USOC?) Summary: I don't think this would aid development or is financially feasible, but I think it would be very entertaining.
In regards to development... Let’s take Brandon Vasquez for example. A promising 19 year old American target forward, which we do not have a lot of in this country. He’s played only a couple of games for USL side because he’s always on the bench for the senior team. Yet, he rarely gets off the bench in favor of Romario Williams. So, when he did get a chance to play against Chicago in the Open Cup he was very rusty. And unfortunately for him, since Atlanta lost...all those minutes he could have received to learn and work on his game, as well as build and keep match fitness is gone. Now, if Atlanta United had 8 or 10 guaranteed games a year, he would have more opportunities to learn from his mistakes, stay match fit, and make his case on why he should or should not receive more minutes in the big show. ...Another point to mention is these US Open Cup games could theoretically be held on international calendar dates which MLS should take a break anyways; and which should kill two birds with one stone. Not hurt the first team during the regular season who will be without their first team players on international call-ups, and fill the calendar dates that would otherwise be vacant. And, considering games are more regional, there would be less travel, ie less costs to the club. So, I don’t see how this would be that taxing to the club. It would add a bit of excitement and novelty, in my opinion, while also giving some young players on the fringe more opportunities.
If I took out the Canadian teams and only went with four conferences, based mostly on current groupings... This is something I would leave to see as early as 2019 (although know it's too soon to start next year) US OPEN LEAGUE CUP WEST League A *1. Los Angeles FC 2. LA Galaxy 3. Seattle Sounders 4. Portland Timbers -5. San Jose Earthquakes League B +1. Las Vegas Lights 2. Fresno FC 3. Orange County SC -4. Reno 1868 League C +1. San Diego 1904 2. California United 3. Oakland East Bay FC 4. [TBD] MIDWEST League A *1. FC Dallas 2. Houston Dynamo 3. Sporting Kansas City 4. Real Salt Lake -5. Colorado Rapids League B: +1. Chicago Fire 2. Minnesota United 3. Indy Eleven 4. Phoenix Rising FC -5. San Antonio FC League C +1. Colorado Springs Switchbacks 2. Tulsa Roughnecks 3. Oklahoma City Energy FC 4. Saint Louis FC -5. Rio Grande Valley Toros FC League D +1. Memphis 2. Austin 3. Madison 4. FC Tucson 5. [TBD] MIDEAST League A *1. Atlanta United 2. Orlando City SC 3. Miami* 4. Nashville* 5. Charleston Battery League B: 1. Richmond Kickers 2. North Carolina FC 3. Charlotte Independence 4. Tampa Bay Rowdies 5. Birmingham Legion FC League C 1. Jacksonville Armada 2. Puerto Rico FC 3. Greenville 4. South Georgia Tormenta FC 5. [TBD] EAST League A *1. New York Red Bulls 2. New York City FC 3. New England Revolution 4. DC United -5. Philadelphia Union League B: +1. Columbus Crew 2. FC Cincinnati 3. Louisville City FC -4. Pittsburgh Riverhounds League C: +1. New York Cosmos 2. Rochester Rhinos 3. Penn FC 4. [TBD]
I support the idea of divisions (or maybe groups) but the pro/rel aspect would defeat the idea of an OPEN cup. Maybe format it like the world cup with 8 groups, the top 2 teams in each group move to the knock out round of 4 games. I also like the idea of rebranding the 'US Open Cup' is so dry.
With the Open Cup back under way, this idea continues to resurface for me. This is the model I’ve come up with. Have qualifiers to see who gets in but have 8 conferences of 4 teams total. Play 6 league games and then the top team from each conference advances to a quarter final round. Conference 1: SOUTH-WEST LA Galaxy vs [LA Galaxy 2 vs Reno] Los Angeles FC vs [Orange County SC vs Las Vegas Lights] Real Salt Lake vs [Real Monarchs vs FC Tucson] Colorado Rapids vs [Colorado Springs Switchbacks vs Phoenix Rising] Conference 2: NORTH-WEST Seattle Sounders vs Tacoma Defiance Portland Timbers vs Portland Timbers 2 San Jose Earthquakes vs Oakland East Bay Sacramento Republic vs Fresno FC Conference 3: NORTH-CENTRAL Minnesota United vs Forward Madison Sporting Kansas City vs Swope Park Rangers Saint Louis FC vs Omaha Oklahoma City Energy vs Tulsa Roughnecks Conference 4: SOUTH-CENTRAL: FC Dallas vs North Texas United Austin FC vs Austin Bold FC Houston Dynamo vs Rio Grande Valley Toros [New Mexico United vs El Paso Locomotive vs San Antonio FC] Conference 5: MIDWEST: FC Cincinnati vs Penn FC Chicago Fire SC vs Chicago USL Columbus Crew be Pittsburgh Riverhounds Indy Eleven vs Louisville City FC Conference 6: SOUTH: Nashville SC vs [Nashville FC vs Chattanooga Red Wolves] Atlanta United vs [Atlanta United 2 vs South Georgia Tormenta] Charleston Battery vs Greenville Triumph Memphis vs Birmingham Legion Conference 7: ATLANTIC: Orlando City SC vs Tampa Bay Rowdies Inter Miami CF vs Richmond Kickers DC United vs Loudon United North Carolina FC vs Charlotte Independence Conference 8: NORTH New York Red Bulls vs New York Red Bulls 2 New York City FC vs Rochester Rhinos Philadelphia Union vs Bethlehem Steel New England Revolution vs Hartford Athletic
Sorry but the whole idea of the "Open Cup" is that it's "open" to all USSF members and has been since 1912. This years competition began in September 2018 with match ups like Ukrainian Nationals (founded in 1950) vs. United German Hungarians (originated in 1910) and Colorado Rush (academy) vs. Harpo's FC (founded 1997). The problem you have with your idea is that should any amateur teams make the league stage, they couldn't afford the time or the cost of travel.